Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp1 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - II

Integrated AHP-TOPSIS framework for fodder pellet evaluation with fibre-digestibility correlation analysis

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.9628
Submitted
26 May 2025
Published
21-08-2025 — Updated on 16-09-2025
Versions

Abstract

Pelleted feeds ensure balanced nutrition, improved digestibility, long-term preservation and enhanced palatability, making them vital for livestock during lean seasons. With the growing demand for optimized feed formulations, evaluating complex nutritional data has become crucial. However, ranking feed combinations using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods remains a significant challenge. This study, conducted at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, during 2024–2025, assessed 27 fodder pellet combinations using a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework that integrated the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). Pellets comprised Bajra Napier hybrid, Guinea grass, Fodder maize and legumes such as Lucerne, Desmanthus and Agathi, combined with crop residues from rice, maize and groundnut. Nutritional parameters, including crude protein, fibre fractions (ADF, NDF, ADL, cellulose and hemicellulose), crude fat, total ash, palatability and in vitro dry matter digestibility, were studied. AHP assigned weights to each parameter, while TOPSIS ranked combinations by closeness to the ideal solution. The Bajra Napier Hybrid + Agathi + Groundnut haulms combination had the highest TOPSIS score (0.8808), indicating superior nutritional performance. This study validates AHP-TOPSIS as a reliable tool for optimizing fodder pellet formulations. Correlation studies showed a negative relationship among various pellet formulations. Guinea grass + Desmanthus + Maize stover exhibited the highest crude fibre content (32 %) with moderate digestibility (66 %), indicating greater fibre accumulation. Conversely, Fodder Maize + Agathi + Groundnut haulms had a lower crude fibre content (28%) but achieved a digestibility of 64%, making it a favourable choice for improved nutrient bioavailability. The findings from this study can guide feed industries and farmers in selecting nutritionally balanced, cost-effective pellet combinations that contribute to local fodder availability and support sustainable livestock nutrition strategies.

References

  1. 1. Bardhan D. Rapporteur’s report on sustaining livelihoods: the role of livestock, poultry and fisheries in rural economy. Indian J Agric Econ. 2024;79(3):874–87. https://doi.org/10.63040/25827510.2024.03.036
  2. 2. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD). Updated Compendium of Animal Husbandry Statistics 2022–23 [Internet]. New Delhi: Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; 2023 [cited 2025 Jul 25]. Available from: https://dahd.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-10/UpdatedCompendium2022-23.pdf
  3. 3. Adesogan AT, Havelaar AH, McKune SL, Eilitta M, Dahl GE. Animal source foods: sustainability problem or malnutrition and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Glob Food Secur. 2020; 25:100325. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100325
  4. 4. FAO. Nutrition and livestock – Technical guidance to harness the potential of livestock for improved nutrition of vulnerable populations in programme planning. Rome: FAO; 2020. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca7348en
  5. 5. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute (IGFRI). Vision 2050: Fodder and Feed Resources in India. Jhansi: ICAR–IGFRI; 2015.
  6. 6. Birthal PS, Jha AK. Economic losses due to various constraints in dairy production in India. Indian J Anim Sci. 2005;75(12):1371–76.
  7. 7. Kırkpınar F, Acıkgoz Z. Feeding. In: Animal Husbandry and Nutrition. IntechOpen; 2018. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78618
  8. 8. Coleman SW, Moore JE. Feed quality and animal performance. Field Crops Res. 2003; 84:17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00138-2
  9. 9. Katoch R. Conservation and processing of forages. In: Techniques in Forage Quality Analysis. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2022a. p.187–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6020-8_15
  10. 10. Vinodhini SM, Sivakumar SD, Ramesh T, Pushpam R, Surendrakumar A, Raghavendran VB, et al. Pelletization as a forage conservation technique: enhancing feed efficiency and sustainability in livestock. Plant Sci Today. 2025;12(2):1–10.
  11. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7123
  12. 11. Chaube S, Pant S, Kumar A, Uniyal S, Singh MK, Kotecha K, et al. An overview of multi-criteria decision analysis and the applications of AHP and TOPSIS methods. Int J Math Eng Manag Sci. 2024;9(3):581. https://doi.org/10.33889/ijmems.2024.9.3.030
  13. 12. Assari A, Mahesh T, Assari E. Role of public participation in sustainability of historical city: usage of TOPSIS method. Indian J Sci Technol. 2012;5(3):228994.
  14. 13. Sumaryanti L, Nurcholis N. Analysis of multiple criteria decision-making method for selection the superior cattle. Intensif J Ilm Penelit Penerap Teknol Sist Inform. 2020;4(1):131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100362
  15. 14. Amenu K, McIntyre KM, Moje N, Knight-Jones T, Rushton J, Grace D. Approaches for disease prioritization and decision-making in animal health, 2000–2021: a structured scoping review. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023; 10:1231711. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1231711
  16. 15. Shahrabi-Farahani S, Hafezalkotob A, Mohammaditabar D, Khalili-Damghani K. Selection of sustainable industrial livestock site using the R-Number GIS-MCDM method: a case study of Iran. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2024; 22:100362.
  17. https://doi.org/10.29407/intensif. v4i1.13863
  18. 16. Grundy MML, Edwards CH, Mackie AR, Gidley MJ, Butterworth PJ, Ellis PR. Re-evaluation of the mechanisms of dietary fibre and implications for macronutrient bioaccessibility, digestion and postprandial metabolism. Br J Nutr. 2016;116(5):816–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114516002610
  19. 17. Deusch S, Camarinha-Silva A, Conrad J, Beifuss U, Rodehutscord M, Seifert J. A structural and functional elucidation of the rumen microbiome influenced by various diets and microenvironments. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1605.
  20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01605
  21. 18. Grant R, Smith W, Miller M. Relationships between fibre digestibility and particle size for lactating dairy cows. WCDS Adv Dairy Technol. 2020;32:47–57.
  22. 19. Humphries EC. Mineral components and ash analysis. In: Paech K, Tracey MV, editors. Modern Methods of Plant Analysis: Erster Band/Volume I. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1956. p. 468-502.
  23. 20. Van Soest PV, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991; 74:3583–97.
  24. 21. Czerkawski JW, Breckenridge G. Design and development of a long-term rumen simulation technique (RUSITEC). Br J Nutr. 1977;38(3):371–84.
  25. 22. Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. New York: Springer; 1981.
  26. 23. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill; 1980.
  27. 24. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024 [cited 2025 Jul 25]. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
  28. 25. Prasad JR, Rao ZP, Rao DS. Evaluation of complete rations containing groundnut haulms at different levels in sheep. Indian J Anim Nutr. 2000;17(2):147–52.
  29. 26. Vijayakumar P, Singaravadivelan A, Senthilkumar D, Vasanthakumar T, Ramachandran M. Effect of Sesbania grandiflora (Agati) supplementation on weight gain of crossbred Jersey heifer calves. Int. J. Econ. Plants. 2021; 8:162–64. https://doi.org/10.23910/2/2021.0415g
  30. 27. Mubeena P, Thomas UC, Surendran D. Nutritional evaluation of predominant tree fodders and shrubs of Southern Kerala as a quality livestock feed. Agric Sci Digest. 2022;42(4):454–58. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag. D-5388
  31. 28. Rosado MJ, Rencoret J, Marques G, Gutierrez A, Del Río JC. Structural characteristics of the guaiacyl-rich lignins from rice (Oryza sativa L.) husks and straw. Front Plant Sci. 2021; 12:640475. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.640475
  32. 29. Sufyan A, Ahmad N, Shahzad F, Embaby MG, AbuGhazaleh A, Khan NA. Improving the nutritional value and digestibility of wheat straw, rice straw and corn cob through solid state fermentation using different Pleurotus species. J Sci Food Agric. 2022; 102:2445–53.
  33. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11584
  34. 30. Singh S, Sharma RK, Rastogi A, Khan N. Variability in the nutritional value of paddy straw (Oryza sativa) varieties. J Livest Sci. 2022; 13:213–220. https://doi.org/10.33259/JLivestSci.2022.213-220
  35. 31. Praveen BR, Sannagoudar MS, Babu RC, Rajanna GA, Singh M, Kumar S, et al. Sustainable use of paddy straw as livestock feed: a climate resilient approach to crop residue burning. In: Singhal RK, Ahmed S, Pandey S, Chand S, editors. Molecular Interventions for Developing Climate-Smart Crops: A Forage Perspective. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2023. p. 197–214.
  36. 32. BR, Sannagoudar MS, Babu RC, Rajanna GA, Singh M, Kumar S, et al. Sustainable use of paddy straw as livestock feed: a climate resilient approach to crop residue burning. In: Molecular Interventions for Developing Climate-Smart Crops: A Forage Perspective. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2023. p.197–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1858-4_11
  37. 33. Krishna CR, Babu AS, Raju S, Kumar BS. Comparative evaluation of various hybrid Napier Bajra and multicut sorghum green fodders for proximate composition, fodder quality and digestibility parameters. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2025;9(2Sa):3683. https://doi.org/10.33545/26174693. 2025.v9. i2Sa.3683
  38. 34. Wadhwa M, Kaur K, Kumar B, Bakshi MPS. Comparative evaluation of non-leguminous forages as livestock feed IJAN. 2010;27(1):44–49.
  39. 35. Alikwe PCN, Ohimain EI, Aina ABJ. Comparative digestibility of maize stover, rice straw, malted sorghum sprouts in West African Dwarf (WAD) sheep. IOSR -JAVS. 2014;7(7):10–14.
  40. 36. Katoch R, Apoorva TA, Sood SURBHI. Improving nutritive value and digestibility of maize stover—A review. Forage Res. 2017;43(3):174–80.
  41. 37. Katoch R. Quality and digestibility of crop residues. In: Katoch R, editor. Nutritional Quality Management of Forages in the Himalayan Region. Singapore: Springer; 2022b. p.399–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5437-4_14
  42. 38. Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, Magaji U, Hussin G, Ramli A, et al. Fermentation quality and additives: a case of rice straw silage. BioMed Res Int. 2016; 2016:7985167. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7985167
  43. 39. Hu Y, He Y, Gao S, Liao Z, Lai T, Zhou H, et al. The effect of a diet based on rice straw co-fermented with probiotics and enzymes versus a fresh corn stover-based diet on the rumen bacterial community and metabolites of beef cattle. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):10721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67716-w

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.